It's not a bogus feature. It's about recording data. When your archiving your photos, it would take even more time to type in your hand written notes or somehow tie it in with the data from your handheld system.
Why not have all the information stored with the image, in the EXIF data, so that 10 years down the road, scientists, archeologists, or anyone for that matter doing research on subjects, etc. can have that extra bit of data at their fingertips. Hardly worthless for the minor cost of implementation.
darknite wrote:
Pushing a button to mark a waypoint just doesn't seem like that big a deal for the money saved
A - You'd still need to reconcile which pictures correspond to your GPS waypoint. That's potentially time consuming.
B - MOST people don't carry a GPS with them...
And my argument about holidays etc is quite relevant. It's primary purpose is to add value to a camera body - not save your neck if you go trecking. Simply linking into an online database saves loads of agro for my money. And the argument about carrying a notepad is pretty poor. How many people (in the real world) carry a notepad and jot down the images number, data/time and their current location? 0.001%?
Is there going to be an altimeter, barometer, thermometer, and anemometer included?
That's a joke. I absolutely have no dog in this fight, and probably more information is better than less, but I have to wonder where it will all end. Have a GPS, don't have a GPS, either way. We've gotten by fine without it up to now, but if they put one in, it won't be the end of the world.
darknite wrote:
So the GPS chip is $20... re-writing the software for the EOS, putting it into the camera body, squeezing in an antenna, and etc would make the end price about, lets say $600 over current body prices.
Huh? $600? That's not even close to right. If a chip is added to give GPS information the firmware code necessary to communicate with the chip is all that's necessary. The CR2 RAW format has room for new variables. Estimated cost, probably under $30-$40 per camera, if that.
Furthermore, Canon should just include it for free since their major competitor does.
Anytime you want to compare profit margins, look at Nikon's D2Xs and D200. Nikon's costs are higher, and they make money.
For $150 you can buy a more capable fully featured GPS. Pushing a button to mark a waypoint just doesn't seem like that big a deal for the money saved, and 1 less thing to go wrong with the camera. Besides, when you are in a heavy forest area or slot canyon GPS won't work anyway.
GPS, the most bogus worthless feature ever mentioned for a camera.. Even more than the dreaded direct print button.
Now that is one of the most bogus worthless statements I've read in a few days.
CPSLOPHOTO wrote:
One thing to note: A family that I teach mentioned that their chip company just won the bid to create all of Canon's sensors. Mentioned that there would be something new, but couldn't talk about it. Digic 3? I don't know what else would be different, but he said it would be noticeable.
OK, I'm interested. A cryptic post here, but it seems more like a joke that no one has picked up yet.
"A family that I teach"? what does that mean? Their "chip company just won the bid to create all of Canon's sensors"? Now there's a loaded statement. Are you suggesting that Canon is giving their chip mfg responsibilities over to a mom and pop fab line, or are you suggesting something else?
darknite wrote:
So the GPS chip is $20... re-writing the software for the EOS, putting it into the camera body, squeezing in an antenna, and etc would make the end price about, lets say $600 over current body prices.
That's an integrated GPS chip. The bare bones ones are less. For $20, all the Canon engineers would have to do would be to wire it to a fairly small little internal antenna (one of the existing pieces of in the camera would work, like the tripod mounting screw) and get a reading from it when appropriate. Their software isn't that complex that adding a custom function to turn the GPS on and off would take more than one programmer one day, and reading from an integrated GPS chip is a few lines of code.
So, your $600 is an accurate number for a ONE-TIME cost, sure. But not per-camera. ;-) Yeah, I'm exaggerating a bit... but not much.
P.S. Saw someone else guessed $30-40 per camera. That's about right, if not a little high.
Regarding GPS: If Canon's cost per camera for adding GPS were $30-$40, we could expect that the sale prices of the camera increase by more than $100. (Manufacturers don't add features "at cost" without building the cost plus margin into the price.)
While some users might think that this addition is worth $100+, I think most wouldn't. I could see adding the capability to interface with existing GPS units or something along those lines.
For the extra cost, I can think of other things that would be more valuable to photographers. (MLU button, anyone? :-)
If, as a number of posts have suggested, GPS tagging of the file would be implemented through the RAW converter, and that the majority of users of a built-in GPS system will be tourists wanting to remember where they took a particular snapshot, I can't help wondering what percentage of tourists typically shoot RAW in the first case? I'd suggest not many, both on account of the extra time and effort required to process the files, and the fact that they can fit three times as many JPEGs on their card.
If that is the case, the argument about the time spent hand-annotating photos holds little water: the user would have to take the time to sit down in front of their computer and process their RAW images, something which perhaps they wouldn't normally do, instead of simply taking the memory card to the nearest lab for printing, then jotting down any details on the back of the print as required.
danmitchell wrote:
Regarding GPS: If Canon's cost per camera for adding GPS were $30-$40, we could expect that the sale prices of the camera increase by more than $100. (Manufacturers don't add features "at cost" without building the cost plus margin into the price.)
We know they don't. They'd charge their accounts $50-$60 for it and then they'd pass the cost on to us too at $70-$80. $100 is a stretch.
BTW, here is a GPS chip that costs $3.95 in 10k quantities.
danmitchell wrote:
For the extra cost, I can think of other things that would be more valuable to photographers. (MLU button, anyone? :-)
They should just make the print button do that as a custom function. Who direct prints from a 5D/1D?
Richard Steer wrote:
If, as a number of posts have suggested, GPS tagging of the file would be implemented through the RAW converter, and that the majority of users of a built-in GPS system will be tourists wanting to remember where they took a particular snapshot
I don't think the 5D/1D are used by that many tourists. High-end amateurs or pros on vacation, sure.
Even in my limited amount of photography I've driven to a nearby forest, walked around for five hours, and wouldn't mind knowing from the top of what ridge I took a picture. With Google Maps APIs and whatnot available these days (and GPS accurate to 1-3 meters), imagine the possibilities professional or high-end amateur photographers could exploit with a $5 GPS chip.
From my point of view, it has almost nothing to do with tourists.
darknite wrote:
Today, based on current technology, no one may need more than 10mp. HOWEVER, when I hear a general blanket statement like this I always laugh, and think back to the infamous Bilol Gates "No one will EVER need more than 640k" statement. Of the possible urban legend of the late 1800s early 1900s patent office head who said everything has already been invented, thats all there is, lets close up shop and go home.
Bill Gates never said that, it is also an urban legend.
Particularly on sites with fanatics, like here, you'll never see a majority happy with their current MP count. I've seen countless posts here about how people want endless MP so they can crop out a postage stamp size area from a postcard size file and print it at A3 with critical sharpness. Manufacturers aren't likely to stop catering to the MP crowd any time soon. Until people wise up, you'll see the escalation of MP with little advancement in other areas that would arguably have a much greater impact on the quality of our photos other than simply an ability to grossly crop.
Richard Steer wrote:
If, as a number of posts have suggested, GPS tagging of the file would be implemented through the RAW converter, and that the majority of users of a built-in GPS system will be tourists wanting to remember where they took a particular snapshot, I can't help wondering what percentage of tourists typically shoot RAW in the first case? I'd suggest not many, both on account of the extra time and effort required to process the files, and the fact that they can fit three times as many JPEGs on their card.
If that is the case, the argument about the time spent hand-annotating photos holds little water: the user would have to take the time to sit down in front of their computer and process their RAW images, something which perhaps they wouldn't normally do, instead of simply taking the memory card to the nearest lab for printing, then jotting down any details on the back of the print as required....Show more →
Replace "raw converter" with any software package that edits/catalogues image files. Jpegs work just as well too!
I don't want to sound like an advocate of GPS - there are at least a dozen other things I'd like Canon to implement instead. The argument was more of somthing useful that Canon could add to it's cameras to increase perceived value, from an average consumers POV.
Re my above post - I've shot ~10,000 images since I got the 30D. About 50% of which set CF12 + self timer. Quick access MLU would be a significant feature for ME. It's about the average consumer though. Hence the direct print button.
Mark Shaxted wrote:
I don't want to sound like an advocate of GPS - there are at least a dozen other things I'd like Canon to implement instead. The argument was more of somthing useful that Canon could add to it's cameras to increase perceived value, from an average consumers POV.
And strangely enough, I agree. I don't want to sound like I'm in total opposition to a camera containing a GPS chip: despite the disadvantages, I can see that in some situations it would be a nice feature to have, but I'd have to say that it's way down the list of things I'd like them to include in their mid-range cameras...
my hats off to Keith Cooper of NorthLight Images http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/Canon_1DS_MkIII.html for keeping track of all 1DsmkIII information coming across the globe be it speculation/rumor or fact, its good to have one dedicated page for this soon to be incredible camera...that i have been saving for and dreaming about for over two years. Thanks Keith.
Imagine uploading your photos to a database that had a world map. It would be possible to link all of the images to the areas of the map where they were taken, simply by reading the GPS info.
That would be a very cool interactive feature that I'm sure some 'dot com' is very much waiting to take advantage of and make millions. Sort of like a google earth, but with photos.
Everyone could take part and create an online photo map of spots in the world at different times, from different angles.
So many possibilities, I think that some just can't see through their daily photo routines as to why GPS would be good to have in a camera. It's defnitely not for everyone...........then again, nothing is for everyone in the world.
Erik Barzeski wrote:
For $20, all the Canon engineers would have to do would be to wire it to a fairly small little internal antenna (one of the existing pieces of in the camera would work, like the tripod mounting screw) and get a reading from it when appropriate.
I seriously doubt that an internal antenna would be effective in a magnesium alloy body. It would have to generally have line-of-sight radio visibility with 3 or more satellites to be able to calculate position. And GPS doesn't actually get a reading of it's position from satellites - it calculates its position based on the relative positioning and other data recieved from several satellites. It's a multi-channel reciever and calculator of sorts.
Still not horribly expensive, but I question it's need for most shooters. On the other hand, having the ability to plug in your handheld Garman GPS to provide direct recording of positioning data for EXIF could be a good way of providing GPS capability to those that do see a need for, or just want GPS.
darknite wrote:
Bilol Gates "No one will EVER need more than 640k" statement.
Ken Olsen of Digital *did* say: "I don't know why anyone would ever need a spreadsheet. You should be able to keep your balance sheet in your head."
I read his bio years ago. It is amazing what happens when once-brillant entrepreneurs reach their level of inadequacy ("The Peters Principle.")
Sorry, what was this thread about?
Canon always surprises us in some ways. I have been most impressed by the fact that they will cannibalize their own sales - take sales from another model - if they think it is the right thing to do in the marketplace.
I usually go to Mexico at the end of February, which leaves me scrambling to find out "what happened!!!" when I get back. Better that way I think. Less painful then waiting and jumping on rumors.
danmitchell wrote:
Regarding GPS: If Canon's cost per camera for adding GPS were $30-$40, we could expect that the sale prices of the camera increase by more than $100. (Manufacturers don't add features "at cost" without building the cost plus margin into the price.)
While some users might think that this addition is worth $100+, I think most wouldn't. I could see adding the capability to interface with existing GPS units or something along those lines.
For the extra cost, I can think of other things that would be more valuable to photographers. (MLU button, anyone? :-)
Dan
I'm the one that suggested $30-$40 or less. My original statement was "Estimated cost, probably under $30-$40 per camera, if that." I really don't believe it would be anywhere near that, but I was countering and humoring the ridiculous statement by another poster who said that it would cost $600.
Even if the chip cost $20, which I also highly doubt, but again I used what the other poster said, the per camera cost would be minimal. Once you allocate space on the board, or even replace an existing IC with one that has GPS built in, it's a simple matter of writing the firmware to handle it as I said. It probably wouldn't take a programmer more than 1 hour to incorporate a new variable into the raw format buffer. That accounts for the time it would take to "check the code out of the code management system, update the buffer with a new variable field (there's already space), test, check the code back in, go home for the day..
In summary, this would not add $100 to the camera. As I already said, Canon should throw it in and if they do add it, I don't think we'll see an up charge for it.
Edited by jamesf99 on Jan 21, 2007 at 06:42 PM GMT
jamesf99 wrote:
OK, I'm interested. A cryptic post here, but it seems more like a joke that no one has picked up yet.
"A family that I teach"? what does that mean? Their "chip company just won the bid to create all of Canon's sensors"? Now there's a loaded statement. Are you suggesting that Canon is giving their chip mfg responsibilities over to a mom and pop fab line, or are you suggesting something else?
Very curious what this means....
I wouldn't mind i fthe something new was a better Foveon type sensor.
And I'll take something photographically useful like a MLU button and/or better DR over GPS anyday.
Better that way I think. Less painful then waiting and jumping on rumors.